Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

Considering that history is written in the perspective of the winners, regardless of the war. It is entirely possible that the numbers of casualties caused by the losers are highly inflated, while the number of casualties on the loser's side are deflated. This does not apply to WWII only, but to every war that occurred throughout history.

Let's take the Vietnam War as an example. When the numbers of American soldiers die, they were considered by the American government at that time as war heroes and the survivors as war veterans. On the other hand, the civilians were killed by the military were considered as the same-level as the guerillas, whether it be young children or the elderly, it did not matter. In terms of inflation, by considering innocent civilians as soldiers would definitely increase the kill count by the winning military forces. Thus, it is actually difficult to determine the actual number of casualties for each and every war, regardless of the country or situation.

That is certainly true for exact numbers, which is why most statistics have an error margin. As for your Vietnam example, I should point out that at the time is not the same as ex post facto. People do go back and reevaluate their numbers, which is why we are more aware today of what actually happened.

nIt's enough if 1 person out of 100 is such an asshole to ruin the lives of many people in such an environment. there is a word in Russian for such people - "stukach" - and thats a very derogatory word.

I believe the word you're looking for is "svolatch".

As for why nukes are still produced today, so they're used as bargaining chips and to put fear into the hearts and minds of enemies. And when the fear factor stops being significant, we just might drop one to show we're willing to use them.

As for why nukes are still produced today, so they're used as bargaining chips and to put fear into the hearts and minds of enemies. And when the fear factor stops being significant, we just might drop one to show we're willing to use them.

I know the theory behind the deterrent issue, but still.. If every nuclear warhead producing nation practice and work hard on their diplomatic skills, there wouldn't be a need to show their will to use it. After all, the reason why countries built so many nukes in the first place is their will to actually use it someday, not like they are wasting money for no reason. Even so, it would be so much better if the world will not go into a war involving nuclear warheads. Perhaps, the ones who support the idea of utilizing nukes as bargaining chips would consider the anti-nuke crowd, such as myself as wishful thinking. It does not matter.

Am I wrong or even back at Clausewitz, civil area could be seen as military targets. From the time of the Mass production , civilians was the ones building the war material and potential low-qualified troop. It was the time of the bigger the army, the better.

obviously, the tradition of making civilians military targets is as old as war itself. it doesnt take much imagination or intelligence to come up with it. take for example famous sieges of old, like Troja, or tactics of the Mongols under various Khans.

its just that nowadays that is considered terrorism. and judged as such - when the "right" people do it. i.e. Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden. when a H.S. Truman or G.W. Bush - or even their proxy underlings like Suharto - do it, on the contrary, it's all for the greater good.

Quote:

@Mumitroll: The US today may not be an full liberal democracy, but I wouldn't mind Singapore taking a few steps in that direction.

you wouldnt mind living in a state where the police can arrest and imprison you - legally - without reason on most of its territory? where you can subsequently be tortured for years without any legal process? where people, with no legal reason, can eavesdrop on your phone conversations, break into your home and search it, look at your medical records - all legally? where press freedom and objectivity is largely an empty slogan - its press is as about far from being free and objective as the USSR's Pravda - and the spectrum of political coverage on TV is confined to a ridiculously narrow band? where elections are a joke - with people having the choice of two parties, both of which are very far to the right of the majority of the population, and deliberately running a policy counter to what the majority wants?

I'd think twice about that.

Quote:

As for the Soviet ratting, 'derogatory' doesn't mean it didn't exist.

so what? take the US in McCarthy times, or Germany in the early days of the NSDAP government. both had its fair share of the same. its not different in most other brainwashed societies with a propaganda system.

Quote:

It is necessary to see the atomic bombing of Japan in the context of the general brutality of World War II. Yes, it was tragic, and yes, it was wrong (though, as others have said, one cannot easily predict how many lives would've been lost if either the US or the Soviets invaded)

you know what I dont like about this? this "context of the general brutality of World War II". first of all, where exactly was the US target of this "general brutality" to give it a "right" to be like that as well? in Pearl Harbor? an offshore military base? this argument might - maybe - have some validity if it was the USSR to firebomb and nuke cities, since it had experienced immensely large civilian losses. but the US?...

Quote:

If not - if humanity fails to learn from history - then, as Einstein said, "I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV; with sticks and stones."

yea that one is a good line. every American school should prominently display it in every classroom, or something. maybe it would help.

Quote:

I believe the word you're looking for is "svolatch".

"сволочь" is just a generic curseword, while I was meaning something specific to the act of ratting on someone.

Quote:

I know the theory behind the deterrent issue, but still.. If every nuclear warhead producing nation practice and work hard on their diplomatic skills, there wouldn't be a need to show their will to use it.

thats a very vague formulation. reality is much more crisp and clear. nukes, for most states, are primarily a method of defense against some other state which is a) larger and more powerful or b) has nukes already. nobody builds nukes with the intent of using them (except maybe the US). at least nobody known to me.

nuke-building history started with Nazi Germany. the US nuke program was famously suggested by Einstein in several letters to Roosevelt, who was afraid that otherwise the Nazis would have nukes before the US would - so it was basically a preemptive defense (although today they have pretty much lost that function for the US since it is clearly on top in terms of regular military power anyway). USSR started its nuke program to keep up with the US and also as a method of defense. UK and France followed to have a method of defense against the USSR. China followed to be on par with the US and USSR. etc. most recent cases - for Israel its a defense against Arab states, for North Korea it is defense against the US, for Iran its a defense against the US and Israel.

Quote:

Perhaps, the ones who support the idea of utilizing nukes as bargaining chips would consider the anti-nuke crowd, such as myself as wishful thinking. It does not matter.

the problem is not so much in utilizing nukes for bargaining. it's when states go into direct military action involving or being directed against other states with nukes. that is, to put it mildly, very unwise. to put it less mildly, it is LUNACY. and may ultimately result in the deaths of most of us. and yet it happened at least twice - once in Cuba in 1962, and once 3 months ago in Georgia. i must say, i really, REALLY did not like the events 3 months ago.

At least in the McCarthy years, you don't "disappear" permanently, and the ratting under the Nazis continued even after they're well-established. That was how the Gestapo earned its reputation.

All the "without reason" scenarios: You must be someone to get selected for this sort of stuff. Unless the departments like doing random stuff. Besides, after looking/listening to my stuff, what are they going to do about it? Comment to their colleagues that oh, I'm discussing anime stuff with my friend? Maybe, they'll contact my insurance company to notify that I'm hiding an illness? Don't forget where I'm living. The second part of those lines is my reality. Ok, maybe except the "policy counter to people's wishes" part. I think my local press is objective. Others obviously don't agree, and certainly, it's not free.

you know what I dont like about this? this "context of the general brutality of World War II". first of all, where exactly was the US target of this "general brutality" to give it a "right" to be like that as well? in Pearl Harbor? an offshore military base? this argument might - maybe - have some validity if it was the USSR to firebomb and nuke cities, since it had experienced immensely large civilian losses. but the US?...

I fail to get this point. How the loose of their own civilians should give a country the ''right'' to do otherwise? ( It well know than the USSR didn't hold back when they were going toward Berlin)
Insted of ''context of general brutality'' think of the concept of ''the whole country at war''.

By the way Mumitroll and Mike_Z , why are you ''speaking'' russina on this forum? Self-censoring or what?

All right, this has gone on long enough. This topic is supposed to be about the benefits and disadvantages of the spread of nuclear power, so take all of this talk about World War II and what not elsewhere. I'll delete any further posts that deviate from this topic, so consider this a warning.

On a different note, the discussion on Truman's decision to drop the nuclear bombs is quite interesting, and it'd make good fodder for a separate thread.

Also,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forum Rules

Please Note: Since this is an English forum we ask that all communication be in English.

__________________

The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...

By the way Mumitroll and Mike_Z , why are you ''speaking'' russina on this forum? Self-censoring or what?

both was marked as spoilers. if you cant read it, don't. I can also translate it though:

"I wonder, do they learn history from newspapers?"

"From newspapers, TV, what they are taught at schools, etc. The problem with it is that all that represents reality in a very warped way regarding everything concerning the USSR (since it was the "evil empire" in the Cold War) and Russia (out of inertia)."

Quote:

All right, this has gone on long enough. This topic is supposed to be about the benefits and disadvantages of the spread of nuclear power, so take all of this talk about World War II and what not elsewhere. I'll delete any further posts that deviate from this topic, so consider this a warning.

you are amusing me, to be honest, like many other moderators of similar forums. why do you think that a discussion about the benefits and disadvantages of the spread of nuclear power, in a thread called "Nuclear Power and Foreign Policy", must be strictly limited to posts having "benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power" in them? want to demonstrate moderator skills? for example, the question why the US under Truman dropped the bombs on Japan, whether it had the right to do so, and whether it can realistically occur again today, is of MAJOR importance to the thread opener question.

but anyway... i'll just open another thread and will name it generically enough to include discussions about ANYTHING even remotely related, be it benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power, military implications of having or not having nuclear weapons, historical reasons for that, and so on.

both was marked as spoilers. if you cant read it, don't. I can also translate it though:

There's two reasons for the English-only rule. The first is to facilitate communications, and the second is that non-English posts can be impossible to moderate. This is a non-negotiable rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

you are amusing me, to be honest, like many other moderators of similar forums. why do you think that a discussion about the benefits and disadvantages of the spread of nuclear power, in a thread called "Nuclear Power and Foreign Policy", must be strictly limited to posts having "benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power" in them?

Because the OP is not asking for a history lesson, and because the thread drift is obscuring the discussion so much that the original intent of the thread is otherwise unviable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

for example, the question why the US under Truman dropped the bombs on Japan, whether it had the right to do so, and whether it can realistically occur again today, is of MAJOR importance to the thread opener question.

It may or may not be relevant, but it doesn't deserve to completely overwhelm the OP.

By the way, this kind of post would be better if it were in a PM.

__________________

The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...

There's two reasons for the English-only rule. The first is to facilitate communications, and the second is that non-English posts can be impossible to moderate. This is a non-negotiable rule.

I wouldnt normally write anything in other languages, but the guy asked in Russian so I replied. but btw, you have a lot of posts with Japanese text to delete then...

Quote:

Because the OP is not asking for a history lesson, and because the thread drift is obscuring the discussion so much that the original intent of the thread is otherwise unviable.

the problem with that is that you arent even able to discuss this topic with any degree of seriousness without knowing the corresponding history - at least superficially. it's a common attitude on net forums though.. especially US ones.. paraphrased: "history? what history? last week? thats ancient, go away with that." such "I-think-X you-think-Y but-nobody-of-us-has-any-real-clue" discussions are funny to look at, but barely more than that.

Quote:

It may or may not be relevant, but it doesn't deserve to completely overwhelm the OP.

perhaps you are right. I am yet to see any objection from the OP though. if there were one I would immediately comply.

Quote:

By the way, this kind of post would be better if it were in a PM.

I already have several ongoing private discussions with posters here who all ask more or less similar questions and need similar information. I think it's better for such a discussion to be public. less work for me.